Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is the attack helicopter dead?

hushkit.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 650 posts

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#481

Post by actionfromafar »

HenryBemis wrote: post #415
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone disagreeing with you is only assuming improvements to drones and not the counter-drones (or the counter-counters you mention).

I sometimes frequent on 9gag, and someone had posted a video of UKR drones attacking RUS drones/UAVs. I don't remember seeing a speedometer on the feed of the attacking (UKR) drone, but if I can estimate it was at least (RUS UAVs) 80-100km/h (just cruising/spying) while the (UKR) drones were coming in at twice the speed. Considering how UAVs and/or smaller drones have evolved and used in the battlefield the past few…

OTOH drones are used by Russian forces for "human safari" hunting in cities now, so war crimes will always find a way if the will is there.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#482

Post by bluGill »

hajile wrote: post #330
bluGill wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tanks and the other things you list do much better when used by well trained troops in ways that the trainers tell you to. russia isn't doing that so they look bad but that is russia not the concept

You're talking about a year ago. Today, Russia has the largest and most experienced infantry on the planet. Ukraine tried NATO tactics in last year's offensive and got slaughtered. If they'd tried to bunch up even closer (as some NATO generals were pushing for), the losses would have been far worse inside of those kill boxes. It's not training. Tanks are trivial for spotter drones to find at which point they can die…

Russia has some evperienced infantry but they have and are using a lot of untrain troops. Even their well train infantry is often still being use wrong for the training. Every military commentator who has credentials to believe they know something [as opposed to say me who doesn't] notes how poorly trained most russians are. This is not soviet war doctine which russia knows and worries nato, it is something new and not expected.

NATO tactics have never been used as those start with air power which ukraine doesn't have. NATO hasn't always given good advice but this isn't the way they would fight.

ukrane is using tanks as they are made to fight. That isn't fight other tanks if there is any other option. tanks in previous world wars were fighting tanks but not today. Russia is sometimes using tanks like that and there they do well.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#483

Post by lazide »

meiraleal wrote: post #478
lazide wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, since when is Ukraine even close to defeat? Defeated enemies aren’t making regular incursions into the ‘victors’ land which the ‘victor’ can’t stop, or launching attacks agains the ‘victors’ capital. This just reads like Russian delusion/cope.

Zelenski (which presidential term ended) complains every day that they can't properly fight with what they have. This looks like losing for me

That’s called fundraising.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#484

Post by lazide »

zmgsabst wrote: post #473
lazide wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, since when is Ukraine even close to defeat? Defeated enemies aren’t making regular incursions into the ‘victors’ land which the ‘victor’ can’t stop, or launching attacks agains the ‘victors’ capital. This just reads like Russian delusion/cope.

What are you talking about? Kursk was stopped after small gains and prior to any major captures — with Ukraine losing their best units. That loss has led to cities along the line of battle being captured, including the fortress city of Vuhledar. There’s now increased talk of Ukraine giving up territory — which is their defeat. Edit due to rate limit: You’re citing areas Russia withdrew from during the Istanbul talks…

Oh talk.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories....]

Looks like Russia has lost everything but a tiny portion they gained, at immense cost - including the near total collapse of their economy.

And are going to be locked in trench warfare on land they don’t control, with uncertain supply lines, with no air superiority - going into winter.

And is losing more and more control of the little they have left.

This is Russia’s Afghanistan writ large, and will lead to the total collapse of the Russian gov’t (and society) soon.

It’s already nearly destroyed an entire generation of Russian men - in the middle of an already epic demographic collapse.

Don’t get me wrong, this has wrought terrible damage to Ukraine too. But with Russia’s economy (previously) and population being 10x larger, this whole debacle is a huge embarrassment to Russia. Even bigger than the collapse of the USSR.

It would be like if the US went to invade Canada, and couldn’t even hold Ottawa.

Edit to answer your edit: maybe if the 18% was the land near Alaska. And they’re at almost the same amount of land they had control of when this whole mess started. All the major economically productive areas of Ukraine are still under Ukraine’s control.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#485

Post by dgroshev »

torginus wrote: post #379
jandrewrogers wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not just production cost, the average latency between target detection and target destruction has a large impact on battlefield dynamics. More precise weapons can destroy most of the capability of less precise weapons before they are ever used. Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Much of the US focus on precision…

Those FPV drones (either of the bombing or suicide variant) seem to be precise enough - there's plenty of footage of them hitting moving vehicles in weak spots like engines/hatches, individual soldiers etc. As for AI features when the comms are jammed, Russian lancet drones, which have some autonomous capability, seem to be running on Nvidia Jetson boards, and those things cost like $200.

Would you ever see footage of them not hitting weak spots?

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#486

Post by ceejayoz »

oneshtein wrote: post #477
simiones wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No country in the world is free to develop nukes, for any reason. Some still do, of course, but it is expressly forbidden by international laws and agreements.

Except Ukraine, because Ukraine invaded by nuclear country. Read the agreement, please.

Quote from the agreement, please.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

Nothing in it says anything like "if broken, Ukraine can have a nuclear program".

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#487

Post by bee_rider »

HKH2 wrote: post #337
bee_rider wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America lost the Vietnam war. Do you think Vietnam is America's near peer? I was responding to somebody who said Ukraine was Russian’s near-peer. I didn’t say they should be considered peers now, just that they certainly weren’t when the choice was made to go to war. The Vietnam War was like 50 years ago. Who cares, sure, I don’t have any investment in whether or not the US and Vietnam were peers decades before I w…

> I didn’t say they should be considered peers now You implied it. > The Vietnam War was like 50 years ago. Who cares, sure, I don’t have any investment in whether or not the US and Vietnam were peers decades before I was born. Vietnam certainly has an impressive record. America clearly wasn't using anywhere near all of the power it had. Neither is Russia now.

>> I didn’t say they should be considered peers now

> You implied it.

No I didn’t. I left that unaddressed because I don’t care to argue it either way, or consider it relevant to my overall point.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#488

Post by aguaviva »

simiones wrote: post #456
bee_rider wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America lost the Vietnam war. Do you think Vietnam is America's near peer? I was responding to somebody who said Ukraine was Russian’s near-peer. I didn’t say they should be considered peers now, just that they certainly weren’t when the choice was made to go to war. The Vietnam War was like 50 years ago. Who cares, sure, I don’t have any investment in whether or not the US and Vietnam were peers decades before I w…

> They also seem to be trying to get entrenched in Crimea, and IIRC brought up the idea of some promise that Ukraine wouldn’t ever going NATO, although don’t remember if that was a serious proposal or what. NATO explicitly added plans to offer membership to Ukraine and Georgia at the Bucharest summit, and has been conducting joint military excercises with Ukraine ever since, the last one happening ~1 year before the…

NATO explicitly added plans to offer membership to Ukraine and Georgia at the Bucharest summit,

That's the complete opposite of what happened. The key outcome of the Bucharest summit is that Ukraine and Georgia were explicitly denied Membership Action Plans, which would have been the crucial step needed to move their application forward. Instead they got kicked downstairs to "aspirational" status, which they both complained loudly and bitterly about. This was very, very big news at the time.

So no, Ukraine was not "absolutely moving toward membership" as of that date. They might be moving in a different direction now, but if so that's a result of the invasion, not the 2008 summit.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#489

Post by pclmulqdq »

lucubratory wrote: post #419
pclmulqdq wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the "source?" argument. The classic cry of people who want to disagree but have nothing productive to add to the discussion. I could point you to literally dozens of books on the Pax Americana and its decline (google is your friend) and America's de facto empire, as well as historical studies of the Pax Brittanica and the Pax Romana. Or Chinese histories that discuss the waves of peace and prosperity followin…

This would be a fantastic copypasta for anytime someone requests you prove the outlandish claims you're making.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

You want to engage in a debate involving cited sources? What's good for the goose is good for the gander - write a response with a citation or two that rebuts a key point. Otherwise, asking for sources in online arguments is borderline trolling.

Re: Is the attack helicopter dead?

#490

Post by meiraleal »

lazide wrote: post #483
meiraleal wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zelenski (which presidential term ended) complains every day that they can't properly fight with what they have. This looks like losing for me

That’s called fundraising.

No, it is called a losers fundraising
Post reply on HN